Y2HH

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 12:33 PM) But you replied to what I posted originally... I replied to show an example that all Presidents inherit something bad, to some degree, some worse than others. Obama at least held an advantage in that he knew what he was inheriting before he inherited it, so if he didn't want the job, he didn't have to take it. Some of them enter office and inherit stuff nobody knows about yet...but that excuse aside, we elect these leaders to lead us out of these issues, not stand there and blame everyone else for failing to do so. But as usual, my point is met with typical partisan bulls***.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 12:30 PM) very noble of you. so why don't you lead by stating all the things you think Romney, Ryan and the GOP have done correctly. He has a point, though.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 12:25 PM) This thread is a perfect barometer of where politics are in this country today. No one wants to work through the differences. Everyone just wants to forward their own agenda and back their team. Exactly what I said early on.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:31 AM) Yes, seriously. The stock market is not the economy, but even if it were a perfect measure, you'd still be wrong. You've jumped the reasoning shark now. My statement, that the .com collapse was historic, was and is accurate no matter how you try to spin this.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) Even with the .com collapse, things were nowhere near as bad as in '08-'09. Agree? Sorry back. Of course I'd agree with that, but that's not what he said. After I mentioned Bush had inherited a mess of his own, he basically said the .com collapse wasn't historic. Well, it was, and he continues to be wrong by claiming otherwise. I wasn't saying it's historic in comparison to X or Y, I was merely saying it was historic. And it was.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:29 AM) Which is why economic debates are so hilarious. Clinton happened to be president during a tech boom so he is a brilliant man. If tomorrow I invented a new fuel that replaced oil and every other country started using it, the President would be considered an economic genius. Which is really why social issues, human rights, etc are the most important. Economics is far more unpredictable and I really believe the times make the man in that regard. We agree.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:27 AM) Bush's minor recession was not historic in nature. Um, seriously? The .com collapse was historic in nature. You fail at stock market.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:24 AM) The state of things as Obama inherited them 4 years ago was historic in nature...these were not "certain problems." GMAFB. Secondly, as I said, both in the post you replied to and the one I referenced after the first debate, I think the strategy is better to admit there have been struggles; no one is perfect and these problems were extraordinarily complex. But the policies of the last 15 years? I suppose one could fault Clinton for not using the economic conditions during his term to invest more in energy independence, but what other current issues are you going to link back to his term? Bush inherited a .com bust, which was historic in nature, too. I don't find it was an excuse for him, and I don't find this as an excuse for Obama. He was elected to lead us out of this, not fail and point back and say, well...his fault. I don't accept that, and neither should you. We elected him on the promise he'd lead us out of this...so he needs to do that, instead of playing a blame game which you've seemed to accept as ok. It's not ok.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:23 AM) Iraqis forced the timeline and refused to extend it, not Bush. ...and Bush eventually accepted and signed that deal, not Obama. Thus he will get credit for it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:22 AM) I didn't comment on Afghanistan because Obama campaigned on increasing that war. Obama "kept" Iraq going by following the scheduled end of the war that all sides agreed to. Saying that he continued the war without noting that he was following the SOF agreement with Iraq for the scheduled end of combat operations and the draw down of troops removes a lot of context. But note that Biden's point was in relation to the deficit and paying for those wars. Bush's budgets pretended that those wars didn't exist and therefore they weren't accounted for in the budget and they certainly weren't paid for and Ryan went right along with that. That comment was centered on supposed budget-hawk Ryan only finding his budget-hawkery in January 2009 after being the budget leader under Bush. You aren't going to get much argument from me when it comes to budgets/deficits/debt and Bush. Whether people admit that or not, or use accounting tricks to hide it makes no difference to me. My point is, a lot of what Obama promised to do in his campaign, he did the opposite when he became president...and continued most of what Bush had started. Whether he was forced too or not doesn't matter to me...what matters is he did.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:18 AM) Actually because of the Iraqis. Actually because of Bush. Now stop spinning your wheels, your bias is showing. Not that everyone isn't already aware of it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:17 AM) What, like your original post that strips away all of the context? No, my original post was that Obama kept wars going that Bush started WELL into his term. You love playing pretend with your facts. Enjoy that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:16 AM) With a small contingent of troops well after combat operations had ended in the country. Yes, a small contingent of only 10,000 troops. Regardless of your spin, which is exactly what you'er doing now, it's still an extension. And the only reason he couldn't? Bush.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:15 AM) But to be fair, that was an explicit part of the Obama stump and McCain vehemently disagreed about providing a deadline. In the middle of that Bush signed that pact because there was also urgency on the Iraqi side to do so. And that Obama oversaw that transition and enforced it is something he should get credit for. He should also get credit for wanting to extend that war, which he did. Bush, however, gets credit for forcing Obama's hand not allowing it. So, how about we credit both, as we should? Instead of cherry picking facts that support your arguments?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:15 AM) Yes, that deal. He followed the plan that was agreed to by both sides to end the war. So, when I said he ended the war, I was stating a (fact). As the article you linked said, Obama's election allowed the Iraqis to push Bush for more concessions in late 2008. Only he wanted to nix that deal and extend it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:11 AM) Obama ended the Iraq war as was scheduled and planned and agreed to by both Iraqis and the US. You mean the deal made and signed by GW Bush. Obama ended the war over 2 years into his own term, BECAUSE of a signed pact by President Bush (fact). Obama asked them (Iraq) if we could leave troops there AFTER that deadline. Read the HuffPost article. "President Obama wanted to stay longer -- as recently as a few weeks ago asking the Iraqi government to allow 10,000, then 3,000 troops to remain past New Year's Eve. But the president ultimately had no choice but to stick to candidate Obama's plan -- thanks, of all things, to an agreement signed by George W. Bush."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:09 AM) The Iraq War ended in December of last year as scheduled after a planned draw-down which was planned by GW. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nation...yX1O_story.html And Obama was elected when? You're not very good with math, are you. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/o..._n_1032507.html

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:03 AM) Obama did not continue the Iraq war. Sure he did, he just recently pulled back on it. And then extended the other one. What you just said, however, is an absolute lie. Even the Huffington Post think so... Obama continued the Iraq war all the way through 2011, AND, wanted to extend it (read below). So stop playing pretend with your facts. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/o..._n_1032507.html

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:01 AM) Thank you, Biden...this is exactly the sort of thing that Joe can say that is more difficult for Barack....and what needed to be said. The problem with that is Obama continued those same policies, wars, extended the Bush tax cuts, added more tax cuts on top of them, and...well...there we have it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 10:47 AM) It doesnt matter that the US isnt making a dent today, you dont give up just because you cant immediately fix a problem. And I completely understand that if everyone else is polluting that the US changing wont really mean much, but that isnt the point. The point is that before I can fix the problems of the world, I need to fix the problems in my little plot of land. And if I cant even get agreement on a simple issue such as "we shouldnt destroy the our own plot of land", how can I convince the world they shouldnt destroy their plot of land. Just more blame game. I agree on that, but the solution is very complex. We don't have any money to be throwing at the wall "hoping" it helps, but things that we know will help we should do IF we can do it, much less even afford to do it. This is what happens when you spend all of your money...when you find yourself needing money in an emergency, and I'd call this a potential emergency, you don't have it. We don't have it. Whether it be because of wars, or healthcare, or whatever have you, we don't have it. This is what happens when governments spend during bad times (which they should), and then continue spending during good times (which they shouldn't). Now, when we need resources for a worthy cause...they aren't there. And what will the people do? Elect the same government royalty that got here us.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 10:36 AM) Instead of arguing about who may be at fault, why dont we talk about solutions. Whether or not global warming is real or a myth, cant we all agree that it would make sense from a risk standpoint to do our best to take preventive measures regardless? Why does it always have to be arguing about who did what or who is to blame. I dont believe that has ever solved a problem, unless the problem was figuring out who was to blame. I think in many ways, we already are. Pretty much everything we do is more efficient and cleaner than it's ever been before, but we aren't even making a dent. This is a simplified solution (discussion) to a complex problem...this isn't a USA issue, it's a world issue. And unless until you can get EVERYONE on board, it doesn't matter if you cut emissions and North Korea cranks out 50x more, nullifying advances we would make. Everyone has to do this together.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 10:25 AM) Sure you did. Because he did.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 10:18 AM) When Obama had an uninspiring performance everyone on the left skewers him including the entire MSNBC panel. When Ryan gives an uninspiring performance everyone on the right points fingers and makes excuses. Laughable. As Jon Stewart would say, "On bulls*** mountain, we amplify the problems, and simplify the solutions."

Most of you make it hard to want to discuss politics, whether it be from left leaning posts which result in others right leaning posts to refute them, or vise-versa. It's too the point that the political discourse in this country is nothing but lies, and accepting those lies, while ignoring your own. Debate 2012: Point out opponent party lies while ignore your own party lies. Reviewers/watchers will do the exact same. Result: Nothing. Not only business as usual in Washington, business as usual with the voters, too.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) I suppose you could, if he'd been more successful getting more stimulus he could have plugged that into local governments to cover their tax shortfalls. Romney 2012! Only they wouldn't have done that. They'd have taken that money and raised taxes/fees anyway. Besides, stimulus money is a great one time tent pole...but it's not recurring, so they still would need to find a way to cover their spending, especially when accounting for their completely unfunded pensions.